Is Central Churchmanship Dying Out?

1246

Comments

  • It's often struck me as odd that, in Baptist churches which have a "lower" understanding of Ordination than Anglicans (and no theology of "priesthood"), that the Minister presiding at Communion often sits on a 'throne' which is considerably larger and more ornate than those used by the Deacons who will serve the elements. It seems all wrong, except for the fact that said chair usually has a harder seat and more Knobbly Carved Wooden Excrescences to poke into parts of one's anatomy, which is possibly a sort of penance!

    Not in any church I've served in. All the chairs are the same and the Minister and Deacons are served last as a recognition of having no precedence. In fact, it isn't simply deacons who serve - a whole range of people do. On a Sunday morning when we need 4 servers, only 2 are listed. These 2 choose 2 others from the congregation.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Did the pre-Vatican II RCC have special chairs to be used only by visiting bishops in parish churches aside from the Cathedral?

    Where did the Episcopal Church get this practice from? The Church of England? Or just from the practice of bishops going from parish to parish to minister without having a cathedral?

    Vatican II liturgical theology (I think) regards the chair of the presider as one of the key centers of liturgical action (along with the altar and the ambo - which in Vatican II terminology usually refers to the pulpit or lectern), and it is where the presider should (I know this differs in practice) conduct the penitential rite, pray the collect and prayer after communion, and give the blessing during the concluding rite). I think it's supposed to symbolize not only the presider's role as a representative of Christ (Christ is also represented in the Eucharist, in the Word proclaimed, and in the congregation), but also the presider's role as a representative of the bishop. That is why, coming from a Vatican II Catholic background, it strikes me as so odd that Episcopal churches have these chairs for the bishop that are left empty during Eucharists when the bishop is absent.

    I get that the Orthodox see this differently. What is the reason for them for why the cathedra in non-cathedral churches can only be occupied by the bishop?

    I'm not sure of the Episcopal liturgical theology behind all this, both traditionally and following the mid-twentieth century liturgical movement.

    Wasn't it the norm before Vatican II for a bishop to "preside" over most masses he attended sitting in choir robes (not the robes of a singer in the choir, mind you :wink:) the biggest chair but not being the "celebrant" at the altar (back then at most masses there was only one celebrant, and it wasn't really until Vatican II that there was much talk about the whole congregation also being celebrants in a sense, just not in the same way as the celebrating priest(s)). I guess the bishop was only supposed to celebrate if it was a pontifical high mass, which almost never happened. I don't get the reasoning behind this, although there was a reason. Something like this happened in a Novus Ordo mass at Ted Kennedy's funeral, although that was mostly because of the politics of abortion, I imagine. (Not a Dead Horse thread, I get it.)

    I seem to remember seeing a photo of Cardinal Nichols presiding at a Mass in Westminster in that way - attending at his cathedra. I can't find it .... but there's this rather splendid clip of him presiding at the cathedra for the celebration of the liturgy by Eastern Rite bishops. They interestingly process with their arms by their side, strolling into church.
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=Fblag3O6FIo
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited July 2019
    A very grand occasion - and most certainly not central churchmanship!
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    The way of celebrating the liturgy has changed over the centuries from the period over 1000 years ago when the celebration of Mass became something which the priest did.
    For most Catholics (in union with Rome !) until the reforms of the Second Vatican Council Mass was generally a Low Mass and usually without any music.
    The Council of Trent laid down that the priest should say everything in the liturgy and it was what HE said that was important. Thus, at a sung Mass, the priest would sing 'Gloria in excelsis Deo....' and say the rest of the Gloria while the choir sang it separately.
    Even in Solemn Masses this was often the case. The bishop would preside at his throne while another priest would celebrate a Low Mass with the splendid music of
    Mozart accompanying it..
    Think of a typical Mozart Mass - the Kyrie would be used as a sort of entrance music, the celebrant would not intone Gloria in excelsis as that might fill up much of the time of the liturgy of the Word. The Agnus Dei often ends with very joyful music Dona nobis pacem becomes the music for the exit of the ministers (Mozart's Archbishop laid down that no Mass should last longer than 45 minutes !)
    Gradually throughout the 19th and 20th centuries the liturgy (of the Roman Church ) evolved to what it is now - in general on a Sunday it is indeed a community celebration.
  • The Orthodox bishop-only chair is there to remind that, even when the bishop is away, nothing is done without him. Priests are really just the bishop’s deputies. In the very old days though there was a much higher bishop-congregant ratio and parishes would see their bishops much more often if not constantly.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    I can't think of an Anglican church that I've been to here (save for tiny ones in remote country areas) that does not have a throne for the bishop - regardless of churchmanship. Usually a large wooden one with a tall back on the southern side of the sanctuary, and always a purple cushion.
    FWIW, here they all seem to be on the north side.

  • It's often struck me as odd that, in Baptist churches which have a "lower" understanding of Ordination than Anglicans (and no theology of "priesthood"), that the Minister presiding at Communion often sits on a 'throne' which is considerably larger and more ornate than those used by the Deacons who will serve the elements. It seems all wrong, except for the fact that said chair usually has a harder seat and more Knobbly Carved Wooden Excrescences to poke into parts of one's anatomy, which is possibly a sort of penance!

    Not in any church I've served in. All the chairs are the same and the Minister and Deacons are served last as a recognition of having no precedence.
    As in my present church. But the "big chair" certainly lives on in some places!

  • I don't know how relevant it is, but Orthodox churches will all have a special seat for the bishop. Sometimes it's a fairly modest, upholstered chair, sometimes an ornate, canopied throne. I had thought this was a general practice in Christendom east and west.

    It is useful, in the Orthodox context, to distinguish between the bishop's throne, which is in the "High Place", i.e. centrally behind the Holy Table, from where he presides over the reading of scriptures at the Divine Liturgy and from which (until the time of St John Chrysostom) he would preach (seated - with everyone else standing), and the bishop's stall in the nave, from which he presides over the daily office. In most churches of Russian tradition there is no such permanent nave stall. In monasteries this is the Abbot's stall.
  • The much-maligned Richard Giles, in his (IMHO superb) re-ordering of the Episcopal Cathedral in Philadelphia, made sure that the Bishop's cathedra was placed at the east end, in the apse, with seats for clergy on either side.

    There is a photo in one of Giles' books, showing the Bishop preaching (seated) from his cathedra. Alas, the accompanying clergy (and, one presumes, the laity) are also seated!
  • What Giles did was simply monstrous. But even if I thought it was great I would protest the right of any clergyman to swoop in and renovate an old church like that, imposing his will not only on the current congregation but on generations before and after.
  • I think we will have to disagree re Richard Giles!

    Admittedly, his treatment of Philadelphia Cathedral was radical, to say the least, but presumably was agreed to by the Chapter (IIRC, he was Dean at the time). TEC may well have different procedures, but was Giles' action entirely unilateral?

    I confess that I have minimalist tastes, and the thought of clearing all the tat and junk out of Our Place is quite appealing, even though (by English A-C standards) we're quite neat and tidy.

    FWIW, Richard Giles has been instrumental in the revivification of a huge Anglican Victorian barn in Liverpool - St Dunstan, Edge Hill.
    https://stdunstansliverpool.org.uk/services

    I like it muchly, but YMMV!

  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    @Bishops Finger By my standards, Giles tends to cross the line between 'austere' and 'empty' a bit too often. He also a bit too fond of light colours for me. I like light bright backgrounds with the odd splash of colour or drama here and there. My own preference tends to be for functional, so the elimination of bric-a-brac does not horrify me. If possible rather empty naves, and well appointed chancels, but nothing too over the top.

    I think my own sense of aesthetics leans toward Cistercian, so my present church appeals to me. Nave large and airy with only the essential furniture; the chancel is dark oak panelled with stalls for the priest and the assistant; stone altar; credence table; communion rails with decorated floor tiles. When it was full of Lutheran clutter it made me a little crazy.
  • Forthview wrote: »
    The way of celebrating the liturgy has changed over the centuries from the period over 1000 years ago when the celebration of Mass became something which the priest did.
    For most Catholics (in union with Rome !) until the reforms of the Second Vatican Council Mass was generally a Low Mass and usually without any music.
    The Council of Trent laid down that the priest should say everything in the liturgy and it was what HE said that was important. Thus, at a sung Mass, the priest would sing 'Gloria in excelsis Deo....' and say the rest of the Gloria while the choir sang it separately.
    Even in Solemn Masses this was often the case. The bishop would preside at his throne while another priest would celebrate a Low Mass with the splendid music of
    Mozart accompanying it./quote]

    But why wouldn't the bishop BE the celebrant at almost all masses he attended within his diocese?
  • Does anyone know if in Anglicanism having a Bishop's chair in lots and lots of parish churches is mainly a TEC thing? Does it exist in the C of E?
  • The Orthodox bishop-only chair is there to remind that, even when the bishop is away, nothing is done without him. Priests are really just the bishop’s deputies. In the very old days though there was a much higher bishop-congregant ratio and parishes would see their bishops much more often if not constantly.

    Why isn't the bishop's presence represented by the priest, his representative, sitting in the bishop's chair?

    Why for that matter do priests not sit in the bishop's cathedra when the bishop is not present in RC cathedrals?
  • Because there should be some visual reminder that there is a bishop and the priest is not him. And most bishops are too ugly to hang their portraits up on the wall.
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    The Orthodox bishop-only chair is there to remind that, even when the bishop is away, nothing is done without him. Priests are really just the bishop’s deputies. In the very old days though there was a much higher bishop-congregant ratio and parishes would see their bishops much more often if not constantly.

    Why isn't the bishop's presence represented by the priest, his representative, sitting in the bishop's chair?

    Why for that matter do priests not sit in the bishop's cathedra when the bishop is not present in RC cathedrals?

    I have a dim recollection that in catholic/Catholic the throne represents both the teaching authority and the jurisdiction that is reserved to the bishop alone. The old ceremonials used to give instructions for various liturgical functions when they are conducted from the throne rather than from the sedilia or from the stalls - i.e. when the bishop himself was the celebrant. A good deal of this ceremonial was of baroque origin (i.e. not in the mediaeval books) and involved the correct disposition of various flunkies. Mediaeval liturgy tended to still have the ghost of the idea that the Bishop was the norm officiant, and that everything else was an accommodation; it also lacked the rigid Low Mass/High Mass distinction of the Congregation of Rites post-Trent.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    I can't think of an Anglican church that I've been to here (save for tiny ones in remote country areas) that does not have a throne for the bishop - regardless of churchmanship. Usually a large wooden one with a tall back on the southern side of the sanctuary, and always a purple cushion.

    FWIW, here they all seem to be on the north side.

    You might remember that in the Northern hemisphere, evil lives to the north, and presumably the reverse applies in the Southern.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    The Orthodox bishop-only chair is there to remind that, even when the bishop is away, nothing is done without him. Priests are really just the bishop’s deputies. In the very old days though there was a much higher bishop-congregant ratio and parishes would see their bishops much more often if not constantly.

    Why isn't the bishop's presence represented by the priest, his representative, sitting in the bishop's chair?

    Why for that matter do priests not sit in the bishop's cathedra when the bishop is not present in RC cathedrals?

    The clue is in the name.
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    When I was 16 ,a long time ago, I attended, for the first and only time in my life, a Solemn Pontifical Mass with all the ceremony surrounding such events in the period before Vatican2. From the entrance of the bishop in cappa magna to the strains of Ecce Sacerdos magnus,through the divesting and investing of the bishop in all the pontifical Mass vestments right through to the granting at the end of a Plenary Indulgence (applicable to the Souls in Purgatory) it was an unforgettable event.

    More importantly ,however, as time went on and the changes of Vatican 2 began to take effect it became clear that the Pontifical Mass, as opposed to the Tridentine Low Mass, contained many older elements which were taken up by the changes of the Second Vatican Council.


    In the Solemn Pontifical Mass the Liturgy of the Word/Mass of the Catechumens was and is directed from the throne/presidential chair, moving to the altar at the beginning of the liturgy of the Sacrament/Mass of the Faithful.


    The bishop did not say everything himself , but the reading were shared by various other people. Now at that time they would all have been clerics of one sort or another, but even in this small way there was the idea that more of the community were involved in the celebration than the celebrant.


    If we look at the Ordinary form of the Roman Mass today the Liturgy of the Word is directed from the presidential chair and the scripture readings are read by (usually lay) members of the community. If the presiding priest intones the 'Gloria in excelsis...' he is no longer obliged to say all the words himself but rather invited to join in with the rest of the community


  • Gee D wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    I can't think of an Anglican church that I've been to here (save for tiny ones in remote country areas) that does not have a throne for the bishop - regardless of churchmanship. Usually a large wooden one with a tall back on the southern side of the sanctuary, and always a purple cushion.

    FWIW, here they all seem to be on the north side.

    You might remember that in the Northern hemisphere, evil lives to the north, and presumably the reverse applies in the Southern.
    Yes, I did think of that.

    Well, that and how water swirls clockwise instead of counter-clockwise.

  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Forthview wrote: »
    When I was 16 ,a long time ago, I attended, for the first and only time in my life, a Solemn Pontifical Mass with all the ceremony surrounding such events in the period before Vatican2. From the entrance of the bishop in cappa magna to the strains of Ecce Sacerdos magnus,through the divesting and investing of the bishop in all the pontifical Mass vestments right through to the granting at the end of a Plenary Indulgence (applicable to the Souls in Purgatory) it was an unforgettable event.

    More importantly ,however, as time went on and the changes of Vatican 2 began to take effect it became clear that the Pontifical Mass, as opposed to the Tridentine Low Mass, contained many older elements which were taken up by the changes of the Second Vatican Council.


    In the Solemn Pontifical Mass the Liturgy of the Word/Mass of the Catechumens was and is directed from the throne/presidential chair, moving to the altar at the beginning of the liturgy of the Sacrament/Mass of the Faithful.


    The bishop did not say everything himself , but the reading were shared by various other people. Now at that time they would all have been clerics of one sort or another, but even in this small way there was the idea that more of the community were involved in the celebration than the celebrant.


    If we look at the Ordinary form of the Roman Mass today the Liturgy of the Word is directed from the presidential chair and the scripture readings are read by (usually lay) members of the community. If the presiding priest intones the 'Gloria in excelsis...' he is no longer obliged to say all the words himself but rather invited to join in with the rest of the community


    Yes I have been to those too.
    Thats a very interesting observation about the link between the old Pontifical Mass and the OF. I wonder if it has been researched.
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    Forthview wrote: »
    When I was 16 ,a long time ago, I attended, for the first and only time in my life, a Solemn Pontifical Mass with all the ceremony surrounding such events in the period before Vatican2. From the entrance of the bishop in cappa magna to the strains of Ecce Sacerdos magnus,through the divesting and investing of the bishop in all the pontifical Mass vestments right through to the granting at the end of a Plenary Indulgence (applicable to the Souls in Purgatory) it was an unforgettable event.

    More importantly ,however, as time went on and the changes of Vatican 2 began to take effect it became clear that the Pontifical Mass, as opposed to the Tridentine Low Mass, contained many older elements which were taken up by the changes of the Second Vatican Council.


    In the Solemn Pontifical Mass the Liturgy of the Word/Mass of the Catechumens was and is directed from the throne/presidential chair, moving to the altar at the beginning of the liturgy of the Sacrament/Mass of the Faithful.


    The bishop did not say everything himself , but the reading were shared by various other people. Now at that time they would all have been clerics of one sort or another, but even in this small way there was the idea that more of the community were involved in the celebration than the celebrant.


    If we look at the Ordinary form of the Roman Mass today the Liturgy of the Word is directed from the presidential chair and the scripture readings are read by (usually lay) members of the community. If the presiding priest intones the 'Gloria in excelsis...' he is no longer obliged to say all the words himself but rather invited to join in with the rest of the community


    The Bruckner "Ecce Sacerdos Magnus" is particularly effective thanks to the trombones, and his rather austere Cecilian influenced style of composition when it came to his liturgical works. I remember it being used for its original purpose one time when they were 'putting on the dog' a bit at St Wilf's in Harrogate. I forget who the bishop thus honoured was, but I think the St Wilf's folks but it was someone a bit more Carflick than Bishop Young of Ripon.

    Yes, the Pontifical forms did retain the older forms, mainly because the Low Mass was an accommodation to mediaeval zeitgeist about which Percy Dearmer has a very enjoyable rant. I don't have much love for the Nervous Ordo (YMMV) but there is no doubt that much of what came out of Vatican II, as opposed to the stage two process - Bugnini's deformation of the Liturgy - was long overdue. i.e. IMHO, they had it about right in 1965, why did they then mess it up? When I am short of something that might supply a little grim humour I like to drop in to the 'Rad Trad' sites and listen to them getting the lace garments in a knot over the restoration of pre-13th century practice.

    Just to give y'all a laugh, I tend to read the ante-communion from the chancel stall not because I have any great attachment to the reforms of the Liturgical Movement, but because it gets a cold down draught, which is a very welcome thing on a hot Sunday in July!
  • /tangent/

    Which anecdote reminds me of a Sunday Mass at a monastery in southern France, which I attended a few years ago. The 11thC Romanesque church has a sort of skylight in the south-facing part of the apse roof, intended to throw the beams of the Sun onto the Blessed Sacrament, when the BS is exposed on the altar.

    It also threw the beams of the Sun onto the head of the presiding Abbot, so he (after Communion, I hasten to add) repaired to the adjacent sacristy, re-appearing with a baseball cap upon his tonsured head.

    He wore the cap for the post-Communion prayer, a hymn, the Blessing & Dismissal, and the Angelus.

    /end of tangent/

  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    Alan 29 these thoughts are not mine originally but come from the researches of the great Austrian Josef Jungmann on the Origins of the Roman Mass.
  • /tangent/

    Which anecdote reminds me of a Sunday Mass at a monastery in southern France, which I attended a few years ago. The 11thC Romanesque church has a sort of skylight in the south-facing part of the apse roof, intended to throw the beams of the Sun onto the Blessed Sacrament, when the BS is exposed on the altar.

    It also threw the beams of the Sun onto the head of the presiding Abbot, so he (after Communion, I hasten to add) repaired to the adjacent sacristy, re-appearing with a baseball cap upon his tonsured head.

    He wore the cap for the post-Communion prayer, a hymn, the Blessing & Dismissal, and the Angelus.

    /end of tangent/

    I was present at the dedication of a new parish church shortly before the turn of the millennium. The church featured a (liturgical) east window depicting the baptism of Christ, and on a sunny November afternoon the celebrant paused to note that the chalice had captured on the surface of the wine a projection of the face of Christ. For all that I'm a scientist I find it hard not to find significance in such moments.
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    edited July 2019
    What Giles did was simply monstrous. But even if I thought it was great I would protest the right of any clergyman to swoop in and renovate an old church like that, imposing his will not only on the current congregation but on generations before and after.

    One of the things that slightly annoys me about TEC and other churches in the Anglican tradition in the USA is the complete lack of any requirement to get a faculty before doing significant work to a church. If the Rector can convince the vestry, and hopefully the congregation, that what he wants to do is 'A Good Thing' (TM) then he/she is home free provided the church has the financing. Travelling around I have seen enough naff furniture, fittings, and furnishings to know that you cannot rely on rector/vestry/congregation to do the right thing all the time. My former parish got a severe dose of bad taste after I left as the new rector decided to install a crucifix, and a rather naff set of stations which makes me think he is more into the tortured than the glorified Christ - urgh! He also introduced perpetual reservation, so the altar is now encumbered with a tabernacle.
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    At least in the Episcopal Church, I’ve found it quite uncommon to come across anything remotely in the center. Anglo-Catholicism is on the rise, and I’m only familiar with one place that has anything like center churchmanship, and that’s a monastery! I can certainly be blamed for some of this in my own congregation, as I’ve been part of a group pushing for more Anglo-Catholic practices.
  • I would be inclined to ask what is wrong with an aumbry of modest size and seemly to house the reserved sacrament.
  • PDR wrote: »
    My former parish got a severe dose of bad taste after I left as the new rector decided to install a crucifix, and a rather naff set of stations which makes me think he is more into the tortured than the glorified Christ - urgh! He also introduced perpetual reservation, so the altar is now encumbered with a tabernacle.

    Unless these particular examples are especially hideous, these do not seem to be excessive changes. Certainly, they are the sort of things for which faculties would be routinely granted in England, and nothing like radical changes in Philadelphia Cathedral.
  • angloidangloid Shipmate
    ECraigR wrote: »
    At least in the Episcopal Church, I’ve found it quite uncommon to come across anything remotely in the center. Anglo-Catholicism is on the rise, and I’m only familiar with one place that has anything like center churchmanship, and that’s a monastery! I can certainly be blamed for some of this in my own congregation, as I’ve been part of a group pushing for more Anglo-Catholic practices.

    Thanks for rescuing this thread for its original subject ECraigR. Of course, every Anglican thinks he/she is the normal, 'central' one and everybody else is too high or too low. But at least in the C of E, 'central' now tends to mean, weekly Sung Eucharist/parish Communion; chasubles; very probably reservation of the MBS. In my youth it meant Mattins, 8am Communion with surplice and stole, and formal but very Prayer Book liturgy. Meanwhile Evangelical has gone from scarf and hood with everything, probably no candles on the 'table', and by the book 1662 BCP worship, to free-for-all anything goes.

    So there is now a gap in the middle where Central Churchmanship used to be.
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    angloid wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    At least in the Episcopal Church, I’ve found it quite uncommon to come across anything remotely in the center. Anglo-Catholicism is on the rise, and I’m only familiar with one place that has anything like center churchmanship, and that’s a monastery! I can certainly be blamed for some of this in my own congregation, as I’ve been part of a group pushing for more Anglo-Catholic practices.

    Thanks for rescuing this thread for its original subject ECraigR. Of course, every Anglican thinks he/she is the normal, 'central' one and everybody else is too high or too low. But at least in the C of E, 'central' now tends to mean, weekly Sung Eucharist/parish Communion; chasubles; very probably reservation of the MBS. In my youth it meant Mattins, 8am Communion with surplice and stole, and formal but very Prayer Book liturgy. Meanwhile Evangelical has gone from scarf and hood with everything, probably no candles on the 'table', and by the book 1662 BCP worship, to free-for-all anything goes.

    So there is now a gap in the middle where Central Churchmanship used to be.

    That’s quite interesting. I must admit to not being familiar with current worship practices in the C of E. What you describe as central is somewhat uncommon here. I attended a pretty low church where I used to live, and there the Mass was split in two with one focus on the Word, so readings and preachings, and the celebrant wore surplice and stole for that. Then would come communion, and the celebrant would don a chasuble for that. No reservation, though. A lovely parish, but quite odd, liturgically.

    My current congregation does a full sung Mass using the full compliment of Sacred Ministers, celebrant, Deacon, and Subdeacon. I myself am a Subdeacon, and we all wear chasubles for the Mass. We also celebrate at a fixed altar. We have a Lady Chapel where the reserved sacrament is kept, and the celebrant, depending on ability, chants the Mass. We also have regular Masses for Our Lady, and monthly Evensongs.

    I must admit that although I know I am adroitly high church and, naturally, view that as best, I do love the diversity of worship practices in Anglicanism. Something for everyone!

  • edited July 2019
    ECraigR wrote: »
    [
    My current congregation does a full sung Mass using the full compliment of Sacred Ministers, celebrant, Deacon, and Subdeacon. I myself am a Subdeacon, and we all wear chasubles for the Mass.

    You all wear chasubles? That sounds rather odd, although with apparent precedent in the earliest days of the church. It is still the custom in Canterbury Cathedral, at least, where the three sacred ministers all wear chasubles (and are, therefore, always priests) but do not concelebrate.

    Generally, speaking, though, three sacred ministers implies a chasuble, a dalmatic and a tunicle (with people to fill them).

    It used to be the case that the deacon and subdeacon would wear folded chasubles during Advent and Lent (saving the two "rose" Sundays and certain feast days), and for the first parts of the Candlemass service and of the Easter and Whitsun Vigils. Even this would be odd in the sense of being quite unusual these days. I know of three Anglican parishes that still do this -- there are perhaps a few more, but I doubt there are very many.
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    ECraigR wrote: »
    [
    My current congregation does a full sung Mass using the full compliment of Sacred Ministers, celebrant, Deacon, and Subdeacon. I myself am a Subdeacon, and we all wear chasubles for the Mass.

    You all wear chasubles? That sounds rather odd, although with apparent precedent in the earliest days of the church. It is still the custom in Canterbury Cathedral, at least, where the three sacred ministers all wear chasubles (and are, therefore, always priests) but do not concelebrate.

    Generally, speaking, though, three sacred ministers implies a chasuble, a dalmatic and a tunicle (with people to fill them).

    It used to be the case that the deacon and subdeacon would wear folded chasubles during Advent and Lent (saving the two "rose" Sundays and certain feast days), and for the first parts of the Candlemass service and of the Easter and Whitsun Vigils. Even this would be odd in the sense of being quite unusual these days. I know of three Anglican parishes that still do this -- there are perhaps a few more, but I doubt there are very many.

    Hah, quite, I misspoke. The celebrant wears a chasuble, and the Deacon and Subdeacon wear dalmatics. Apologies. I know Subdeacons traditionally wear tunicles; I’m not sure why we don’t, that’s something I’ll ask a longtimer at the next Chapter meeting.

    We celebrate Mass using Rite l of the BCP and tend to try and keep the liturgical customary pre-Vatican ll. For a wedding we had in June for our Seminarian, we did a full Tridentine Mass, but our Seminarian is a liturgy nerd. I was MC for that ceremony. Atrociously stressful. Although quite lovely.

  • ECraigR wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    [
    My current congregation does a full sung Mass using the full compliment of Sacred Ministers, celebrant, Deacon, and Subdeacon. I myself am a Subdeacon, and we all wear chasubles for the Mass.

    You all wear chasubles? That sounds rather odd, although with apparent precedent in the earliest days of the church. It is still the custom in Canterbury Cathedral, at least, where the three sacred ministers all wear chasubles (and are, therefore, always priests) but do not concelebrate.

    Generally, speaking, though, three sacred ministers implies a chasuble, a dalmatic and a tunicle (with people to fill them).

    It used to be the case that the deacon and subdeacon would wear folded chasubles during Advent and Lent (saving the two "rose" Sundays and certain feast days), and for the first parts of the Candlemass service and of the Easter and Whitsun Vigils. Even this would be odd in the sense of being quite unusual these days. I know of three Anglican parishes that still do this -- there are perhaps a few more, but I doubt there are very many.

    Hah, quite, I misspoke. The celebrant wears a chasuble, and the Deacon and Subdeacon wear dalmatics. Apologies. I know Subdeacons traditionally wear tunicles; I’m not sure why we don’t, that’s something I’ll ask a longtimer at the next Chapter meeting.



    Well, the dalmatic and tunicle have been functionally identical for a very long time! I think I'd enjoy your church. My usual Sunday parish is probably the highest in the diocese, but we almost never use our high mass sets, even though we usually have two priests. For Midnight Mass at Christmas, the second priest did wear a dalmatic.
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway

    [/quote]

    Well, the dalmatic and tunicle have been functionally identical for a very long time! I think I'd enjoy your church. My usual Sunday parish is probably the highest in the diocese, but we almost never use our high mass sets, even though we usually have two priests. For Midnight Mass at Christmas, the second priest did wear a dalmatic. [/quote]

    Quite right! I believe the only difference between the dalmatic and tunicle is length? I’m not totally confident on that. We’re the only congregation within 150 miles that does a Mass like ours, and we take a small amount of unChristianly pride in that. Our acolytes and liturgy commission are all quite knowledgeable and concerned with liturgy, so perhaps excusable.

    If you’re ever in the Capital District of New York certainly send me a PM!

  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    edited July 2019
    I would guess St Odd's is quasi-Central in Churchmanship, but it has its oddities. It is a very formal, traditional language, BCP parish in the middle of a sea of Rite 2. There is a love for, and appreciation of traditional church music, though we tend to be a bit unambitious in what we attempt with the congregation - e.g. the psalms are sung; the canticles are chanted; Communion sung to Merbeck or Martin Shaw.

    The service pattern is a bit quirky in that we alternate HC and the appropriate office both morning and evening, so it is 11am HC (1, 3, and 5) or MP (2 and 4); then the evening service is EP (1, 3, & 5) and HC (2 & 4). Surplice and tippet for the offices; surplice and stole for communion services, though you might see a chasuble occasionally in a morning. There is usually a midweek HC and Bible Study September to June, and I will attempt to keep Prayer Book Red Letter days throughout the year. Communion is celebrated eastward facing, but no elevation at the Words of Institution, though the gifts are elevated slightly at the offertory as a gesture of offering, and rather more at the doxology at the end of the Eucharistic Prayer. No bells or incense.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    ECraigR wrote: »

    Well, the dalmatic and tunicle have been functionally identical for a very long time! I think I'd enjoy your church. My usual Sunday parish is probably the highest in the diocese, but we almost never use our high mass sets, even though we usually have two priests. For Midnight Mass at Christmas, the second priest did wear a dalmatic. [/quote]

    Quite right! I believe the only difference between the dalmatic and tunicle is length? [/quote]

    I think the only difference is in who is wearing it at the time! If a deacon/sub-deacon is the wearer it's a dalmatic; a tunicle if worn by an acolyte. Or perhaps it's the other way around.
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    Back when the dinosaurs, or at least the Red Dean, roamed the earth, Canterbury used three copes for the Sung Eucharist. Lincoln was still doing that at a rather later date - mid-1980s, IIRC.
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    PDR wrote: »
    I would guess St Odd's is quasi-Central in Churchmanship, but it has its oddities. It is a very formal, traditional language, BCP parish in the middle of a sea of Rite 2. There is a love for, and appreciation of traditional church music, though we tend to be a bit unambitious in what we attempt with the congregation - e.g. the psalms are said; the canticles are chanted; Communion sung to Merbeck or Martin Shaw.

    The service pattern is a bit quirky in that we alternate HC and the appropriate office both morning and evening, so it is 11am HC (1, 3, and 5) or MP (2 and 4); then the evening service is EP (1, 3, & 5) and HC (2 & 4). Surplice and tippet for the offices; surplice and stole for communion services, though you might see a cope occasionally in a morning. There is usually a midweek HC and Bible Study September to June, and I will attempt to keep Prayer Book Red Letter days throughout the year. Communion is celebrated eastward facing, but no elevation at the Words of Institution, though the gifts are elevated slightly at the offertory as a gesture of offering, and rather more at the doxology at the end of the Eucharistic Prayer. No bells or incense.

    Ut-oh - tired, and made a couple of fluffs regarding psalms and clobber which are corrected above... It has been a long, hot Sunday!
  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    Pomona wrote: »
    and quite often some type of pioneer ministry
    I realise this was ages ago but I've just started reading this...

    What is a "pioneer ministry"? Thank you.
  • Baptist TrainfanBaptist Trainfan Shipmate
    edited July 2019
    New/alternative forms of worship, very much with an outreach/evangelistic focus to people who wouldn't normally attend church. https://www.churchofengland.org/pioneering
  • I think you do have a theology of 'priesthood', Baptist Trainfan. Just a different one to that which prevails in more sacerdotal settings. What is 'The priesthood of all believers' if it isn't a theology of priesthood?

  • Of course - as you well know! And we'd link it with the idea that the only "high" priest is Jesus himself. We also have a theology of ordination which is much more about the "recognition of gifts" and "setting apart for ministry" than about"ontological change" or "being the only people able to effectually preside at Communion". Perhaps I should have said that we don't have a theology of "particular individuals who are ordained as priests"
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    Anglicans tend to divide between those who have what one might call "a theology of ordained ministry" and those who have "a theology of priesthood" in addition to the general priesthood of all believers. At times we are much better at agreeing on how to do it than what it is we are doing. I have noticed I tend to lapse into using fairly Lutheran sounding phrases when the 'what is ministry/the priesthood' debate gets going in earnest.
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    I would be inclined to ask what is wrong with an aumbry of modest size and seemly to house the reserved sacrament.

    I would tend to say that if you must reserve the sacrament, please do so in a modest aumbry either on the north side of the sanctuary or in a side chapel. Anglicanism was wary of reservation for quite a long while, and the whole issue was a contributory factor in the defeat of the 1928 revision of the BCP. Even nowadays there are many Anglicans who feel that reservation for Communicating the sick and housebound is OK (if we have to, I guess) but anything else is "not on." If I don't read the parish website correctly and end up in a church that does Benediction after Evensong I will slip out before the Benners - not that I am likely to go on a Ian Paisley style rant, but simply because I hold to the Thirty-nine Articles more than the decrees of the Council of Trent.
  • I have never have never heard of any objections from an American Episcopal to reservation as such. Certainly not within the 30 years of my own life, but I think it's been uncontroversial for at least 25 years before that. Eucharistic adoration remains uncommon outwith specifically Anglo-Catholic parishes, but even the lowest Episcopalians reserve the sacrament in an aumbry, usually marked with a lamp. I live in a very low-church diocese, so I feel pretty confident on this point.
  • Eucharistic adoration remains uncommon outwith specifically Anglo-Catholic parishes, but even the lowest Episcopalians reserve the sacrament in an aumbry, usually marked with a lamp.
    Not around here. Most Episcopal churches in these parts seem to have neither an aumbry nor a lamp. Off the top of my head, as I think through all the Episcopal churches around here I’ve been in (which is quite a few), I think only a handful have aumbries.

  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    I have never have never heard of any objections from an American Episcopal to reservation as such. Certainly not within the 30 years of my own life, but I think it's been uncontroversial for at least 25 years before that. Eucharistic adoration remains uncommon outwith specifically Anglo-Catholic parishes, but even the lowest Episcopalians reserve the sacrament in an aumbry, usually marked with a lamp. I live in a very low-church diocese, so I feel pretty confident on this point.

    The parish I used to attend didn’t reserve any sacrament, nor did they have an aumbry. My current congregation has a very large and grand aumbry for the sacrament in the Lady Chapel, and then a pretty plain aumbry that’s for oil. We also practice benediction and adoration.

  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    edited July 2019
    It is very hit and miss around here. Visible aumbry in about half the parishes, but (1) this is Virginia, and (2) I am betting that some of the parishes that do not have an aumbry have the sacrament reserved in a locking cupboard in the sacristy. The first parish I ministered to in the USA did that, the previous rector being conservative MOTR in churchmanship (i.e. 8am HC; 9.30am and 11:00am both alternated HC or MP; Eucharistic vestments at the early service and 9:30am, but not 11:00am IIRC, so as not to frighten the horses.) My second church over here had a discrete tabernacle, which was semi-disused in my tenure, and my third had an aumbry. I don't reserve here, and the church has neither tabernacle nor aumbry, Don't see the point when a sickroom celebration takes about 10 minutes at the most.
Sign In or Register to comment.